Chapterhouse Lawsuit - Settlement reached, Appeals withdrawn - Pg 234! Chapterhouse to re-open store

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Fragile**

Lets face it. If Tebow can lay claim to his kneeling prayer with a trademark, that just shows how stupid the court system really is.

**Kilkrazy**

Trademarks and copyrights are different things.

I must say I am at a loss as to the idea of copyrighting red eyes.

It is a very widely used depiction in films and games, for example in Terminator, and Killzone's Hellghast.

**Sean_OBrien**

With the copyrights, the important thing to remember is that what comes after is less important than what comes first (other than establishing that red lenses are a common feature in many sci-fi settings).

Specifically relating to the Chaplain Helmet though - Terminator which came first established a skull with red eyes prior to GW using it.

http://cache.gizmodo.com/assets/images/8/2010/01/uls_rnb5wm4.jpg

There are plenty of other examples though which came before GW began development on the 40K setting, and well before Chaplains were set as having skull shaped helmets.

The Shoulder Pad issue is a bit more complex. Because GW uses a stylized character design where various extremities are over sized compared to the trunk - a specific example of the same proportions on the shoulder pads will be difficult to find. I haven't seen a copy of Mutant (the RPG which was printed in the mid 1980s that preceded Mutant Chronicles and Warzone games), but it may have art work which is suitable to demonstrate an existing trope.

You also have a variety of toys and anime characters which did have large shoulder pads like you see on Space Marines (especially a line of transforming rocks...Rock Lords...and some balls, though I forget the name of the balls off the top of my head).

What would probably be most helpful though would be a deposition of Naismith, since he designed the Space Marine to start with. In particular a point by point analysis of the "Evolution of the Space Marines" article which includes a copy of the earliest artwork of the Space Marine character design which I know of. I know that I recognize certain parts from that picture as being from other works - and I also recall Bob mentioning that certain design choices (in particular shoulder pads) were made in order to accommodate the molding technology of the time.

**judgedoug**

From my understanding, the copyrighting of the Chaplain head and eyes only applies to the color? So no one could produce a prepainted skull head with red eyes? But an unpainted skull head with unpainted eyes sold would not violate the Chaplain Red Eye Copyright?

**OrlandotheTechnicoloured**

judgedoug wrote:
From my understanding, the copyrighting of the Chaplain head and eyes only applies to the color? So no one could produce a prepainted skull head with red eyes? But an unpainted skull head with unpainted eyes sold would not violate the Chaplain Red Eye Copyright?

Depending on how things go that could be right,

or maybe you'd need to ensure it couldn't be painted like a chaplain

or something else

I think we'll need to wait till this whole mess is finished (and each side says what they think the results are) before we know

**rigeld2**

Can you object to The Court's ruling on summary judgement?

**Mohoc**

rigeld2 wrote:
Can you object to The Court's ruling on summary judgement?

No, but it can be over turned on appeal. Remember that in the US legal system you can only appeal for technical reasons, and not just because you don't like the decision.

**rigeld2**

So can you appeal the summary judgement before the trial, or do you need to wait until after the trial is over and appeal the whole process?

I understand you can't appeal just because you don't like it - I'm not sure what technical reasons might exist (IANAL obviously) but something about his decisions "feels" wrong.

**aka_mythos**

In this the court is simply allowing GW to argue that it has a right to these things, not that it actually does... The court is leaving open to them the possibility of proving their assertion. They can still lose that arguement.

**Warboss Gubbinz**

So I've been reading over all of the judgements and i really cannot tell who came out better or worse at this point. It looks like neither side really got what they wanted. Sooo, off to the jury then?

**rigeld2**

aka_mythos wrote:
In this the court is simply allowing GW to argue that it has a right to these things, not that it actually does... The court is leaving open to them the possibility of proving their assertion. They can still lose that arguement.

No - I know it's still up in the air and a Jury will be needed.
I was just asking procedural questions.

**czakk**

Case conference today was moved to next week.

11/30/2012 259 MINUTE entry before Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly: The telephone status hearing set for this morning is vacated and reset to 12/3/2012 at 9:15 AM, also by telephone. One side's counsel should get the other side's counsel on the telephone and then call chambers. The Court apologizes for the last-minute cancellation of today's telephone conference. (mk) (Entered: 11/30/2012)

**poda_t**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Trademarks and copyrights are different things.

I must say I am at a loss as to the idea of copyrighting red eyes.

It is a very widely used depiction in films and games, for example in Terminator, and Killzone's Hellghast.

in all likelihood, it's probably going to be interpreted as "red eye lenses on a skull-faced helmet" or "Red eye lenses on blue helmet that rips off starwars' Darth Bucket".

**Steelmage99**

Damn, I would really like to see the Claim Chart to which the summary judgments refers.

Any help?

**Sean_OBrien**

**alphaecho**

So, GW's Space Marine shoulder pad is copyrightable. Designs made up of common geometric elements on those shoulderpads are copyrightable. Designs not on a shoulder pad are not copyrightable. Does a possible new market exist in making resin symbols with a curved underside that happens to fit GW shoulderpads?

I'm not surprised the Chapterhouse expert witness could not find any example of military armour that matches a Space Marine. What looks dynamic on a page or sculpted model does not necessarily work in real life. A movie example is two Judge Dredd design teams NOT giving the hero an eagle shoulderpad like his comic form.

**agnosto**

alphaecho wrote:
So, GW's Space Marine shoulder pad is copyrightable. Designs made up of common geometric elements on those shoulderpads are copyrightable. Designs not on a shoulder pad are not copyrightable. Does a possible new market exist in making resin symbols with a curved underside that happens to fit GW shoulderpads?

I'm not surprised the Chapterhouse expert witness could not find any example of military armour that matches a Space Marine. What looks dynamic on a page or sculpted model does not necessarily work in real life. A movie example is two Judge Dredd design teams NOT giving the hero an eagle shoulderpad like his comic form.

It's silly that they're getting the benefit of the copyright doubt based on an expert witness saying they don't have a historical point of reference.... You bring up a good point; is the company that owns Judge Dredd going to get a C&D letter?

Look! That model has abnormally large shoulder pads! Let's sue the company that made it!

Good thing we made it out of the 1980's or half the women in the world would be sued.

**alphaecho**

Big shoulderpads are not copyrightable. GW's Space Marine shoulderpads are, in the opinion of the judge (not Dredd), unique enough to be put before a jury for consideration.

My point about Dredd was that costume designers dumped the comic design because it does not work on a real person. Hence there is no design of real armour with pads like a Space Marine's. If there was the owner probably died horribly in battle because he couldn't raise a sword and it didn't catch on.

Anyway, you couldn't sue Dredd because he was around first!

**agnosto**

alphaecho wrote:
Big shoulderpads are not copyrightable. GW's Space Marine shoulderpads are, in the opinion of the judge (not Dredd), unique enough to be put before a jury for consideration.

My point about Dredd was that costume designers dumped the comic design because it does not work on a real person. Hence there is no design of real armour with pads like a Space Marine's. If there was the owner probably died horribly in battle because he couldn't raise a sword and it didn't catch on.

Anyway, you couldn't sue Dredd because he was around first!

I'm more poking fun at the Judge who obviously has never seen any Sci-Fi movies, comic books or any period Asian armor devices.

Court:

Upon independent examination, the Court finds that GW’s shoulder pads involve enough originality to afford them copyright protection. The unusually large proportional size of the shoulder pads as compared to the Space Marine’s head (depicted in GW’s product at entry 49) is a creative addition to the common shoulder pads sometimes worn by real-life soldiers in battle. The shoulder pads created to fit onto GW’s physical figurines, though more proportionally accurate, are nevertheless still larger and boxier than those typically found outside of the Warhammer 40,000 fantasy world. The Court thus concludes that GW is entitled to copyright protection as to the design of its shoulder pads.

I just threw up some examples of how this statement is incorrect either historically (poor Chapterhouse couldn't find a military historian that looked anywhere outside of Western culture I guess) or in popular fiction (Judge Dredd et al.)

**Howard A Treesong**

If it's like UK law the judge has to base proceedings on the evidence and case law provided by the parties involved, he's not supposed to bring in material he knows about from outside the case to influence his decision, only use what he's provided in court.

**agnosto**

Howard A Treesong wrote:
If it's like UK law the judge has to base proceedings on the evidence and case law provided by the parties involved, he's not supposed to bring in material he knows about from outside the case to influence his decision, only use what he's provided in court.

It probably works that way in the US too which explains how Apple can copyright a rectangle with rounded edges....

**paulson games**

GW isn't able to claim large shoudler pads exclusively, what they get to claim are large shoulder pads that look like their paricular shape (the half bell shape)

Even though they are both grossly oversized nobody could confused Dredd's pads with GW, marines have the bell shape while Dredd's are eagle's or segmented.

Imperial Arbites however Dredd could impose some judgement on.

There shouldn't be any worries over the Dredd crew getting C&Ds. If they tried that GW would lose that battle baddly, some of the early Rogue Trader era art was freelanced out from the artists who were actively illustrating Dredd which is why a lot of the book art looks like it was ripped from the pages of Dredd. (particuarly the sections showing the dredge world biker gangs)

**Ian Sturrock**

I'm guessing the judge is one of those six or so people who've still not seen Star Wars.

**Aerethan**

If I understand correctly, the judge isn't saying that the design is 100% a win for GW, but rather that their claim is enough to be argued in court, where the other items that were denied were not.

**Kilkrazy**

I certainly hope so.

It seems completely ridiculous to say you can copy an existing design, make some parts larger and thereby have done an act of original artistic creation.

What about if someone decides to make the SM pads a bit smaller, or larger still? What is the ratio of embiggenment that results in a new original design?

**Kroothawk**

Kilkrazy wrote:
It seems completely ridiculous to say you can copy an existing design, make some parts larger and thereby have done an act of original artistic creation.

Well, in US law you can successfully claim patent of the genes of living persons (or 10,000 year old cultivated plants). So such things happen

**Aerethan**

I guarantee that if the shoulder claim passes in court that every single person making them will just alter designs to fit on top of them.

Also, which shoulder is being passed to court? The standard one? What about those without the little squares on them? Or ones without borders?

Surely there has to be limitations on what is covered by the copyright on it. It can't just be "everything that looks anything like this".

**alphaecho**

Kilkrazy wrote:
I certainly hope so.

It seems completely ridiculous to say you can copy an existing design, make some parts larger and thereby have done an act of original artistic creation.

What about if someone decides to make the SM pads a bit smaller, or larger still? What is the ratio of embiggenment that results in a new original design?

Well earlier on in the thread when I pointed out that the jet bike designer admitted using the Collected Visions book I was told that that was fine because it was inspiration, nothing is ever truly original and creating a sculpture from a drawing is fair game.

This case is throwing a lot of curve balls around. The judge is allowing GW's shoulder pads to go before the jury based on their size, designs on those pads to be copyrightable yet the actual designs by themselves are not (common geometric designs). Some of the more knowledgable seem surprised by these decisions. Do GWs Finelawyers have a tighter case than was originally thought?

**Alpharius**

Kroothawk wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
It seems completely ridiculous to say you can copy an existing design, make some parts larger and thereby have done an act of original artistic creation.

Well, in US law you can successfully claim patent of the genes of living persons (or 10,000 year old cultivated plants). So such things happen

There are enough quirks in every legal system across the globe to equal these.

I think the US legal system bashing has become more than a little... tired.

**insaniak**

Ian Sturrock wrote:
I'm guessing the judge is one of those six or so people who've still not seen Star Wars.

If we could all stop picking out pictures of shoulder pads that look nothing like GW's Space Marine shoulder pads and presenting them in the thread as examples of previously designed shoulder pads that look like GW's shoulder pads, that would be helpful.

Stormtrooper shoulder pads share only the same basic shape. They lack the border, and instead have a single ridge down the middle, and are much, much smaller than Marine pads.